My bad, sorry for the misdirection. I will fix it soon.Originally Posted by PC
Yea but I did not say that it is the only way to change. It just would help, and most effectively.
May I ask if you try to meditate in order to get a grip on the idea of no-self, what sort of things would go through your mind (and heart)?
Pleasure. I hope it would also be your pleasure to reply.
most effectively
I think history and meditation look at different things. Yes they study human behaviour, but from different perspectives.
History studies the ascribed thoughts and motivations of leaders/ movements etc, but we have no way of knowing if this is actually the way it was. Lots of things have been written about history - it's written by victors etc. We can't know people in history's minds. We can really only know what they choose to tell us, or what others tell us, and the effect, or the ascribed effect that they had.
I think for this reason that history has to be treated with a certain amount of caution.
Whereas you can't know another person's mind - unless you have a miracle power - you can know your own mind. This is the power of meditation. You can see your mind and change it to something beter by applying antidotes to the negative aspects of it. You can check your progress, deepen your experience and take the advice of a teacher. As far as we are concerned, this is the most powerful thing we can do. We can be driven by our negativities and then our positives according to how we are at any given time, or we can try to eliminate the negativity and drive ourself into a better state of mind.
Hinduism and Buddhism are not at odds, as Paul thinks, and others think
Just thought I'd respond to this as you named me.
Thinks is the wrong word. I've heard or read. Nevertheless Buddhism is about trusting the teachings, and it is the Buddha who made the distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism. It is a core difference, and distinguishes very clearly between the two.
The Buddha taught the Middle Way between eternalism - the possession of a soul by beings, and annihilation - no reincarnation and afterlife. .
This debate has been raging for over two thousand years and continues still in these forums between the scientists and the religious.
The reason I responded is to make it clear that it is an opinion to state that Hinduism and Buddhism are not different. Buddhists clearly don't think they are, or why would they bother to be a seperate religion.
The succes of Buddhism historically meant that Hinduism tried to claim Buddhism by stating that The Buddha was an incarnation of Siva. This is not accepted by Buddhists.
Buddhism and Hinduism both describe the same reality - this is something it appears you don't understand.
People are born soft and supple. Dead, they are stiff and hard.
Plants are born tender and pliant. Dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whomever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death.
Whomever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. - Tao Te Ching
It's not about what I understand - it's what The Buddha understood - and the experience of practitioners after him.
I would like you to understand. There is only one reality. This is something we have to acknowledge, and it is a place we can work from.
People are born soft and supple. Dead, they are stiff and hard.
Plants are born tender and pliant. Dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whomever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death.
Whomever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. - Tao Te Ching
The Buddhist path disagrees with your view of Hinduism and Buddhism. It's like saying Christianity and Judaism ae the same. There is a relationship, but they are not the same.
it is like saying there is one reality. Christianity and Judaism both describe one reality, and every Christian and Jew will agree with that statement. Similarly, Buddhism and Hinduism describe one reality. This is my point.
Paul you always say Buddhism says this, and Buddhism disagrees with that - but you're usually way off. You see only a tiny part of what you know as Buddhism, and you reject the rest, and say it doesn't go with what true Buddhism is. You continually do this - your posts are always very rigid and show little understanding of anything beyond what you want Buddhism to be. This is why people come away with a bad taste, thinking they just got through with a rigid and negative philosophy.
Buddhism is about strength, truth, as well as compassion and respecting the teachers. Yet you have a little window view of Buddhism and yet you reject Zen, Pure Land, Nichiren, anything you haven't got in your window, that is not Buddhism. If someone uses the words divine, you say Buddhism disagrees with them, and in this you are completely, totally wrong. But where is the dignity in saying, Buddhism doesn't disagree when someone says divine, many thousands or hundreds of thousands of Buddhists use the word divine in their language and expression when talking about Buddhism. To them it is a common and normal description and accepted, and to the majority of Buddhists; what they hold dear is the divine and the sacred; but to you - it is an opportunity to tell them they are wrong.
If someone speaks of oneness with the universe, you will say Buddhism is not like this, is not about this, and yet in this you are completely, totally wrong. Zen masters and saints have written many, many poems about oneness. These poems are sacred, they are the most valuable pearls, gems, of Buddhism, and yet when someone speaks of oneness, you see it as a good place to tell them they are wrong, that Buddhism is not like this, is not about this, and does not agree with them. Your attitude of inflexibility cannot conceivably be thought of as to be true to the spirit of Buddhism.
The only way to break out of this vice-hold of samsara is to give it everything you've got. Make every word sing with the Dharma. But if you are held down by your previous worldly views, thoughts, consciousness, then make it your primary goal to penetrate below this layer, to come to know the divine, sacred, spiritual, Buddha-nature which is beneath. A little knowledge is much more dangerous than no knowledge.
Last edited by NikolaiI; 09-03-2010 at 01:08 PM.
People are born soft and supple. Dead, they are stiff and hard.
Plants are born tender and pliant. Dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whomever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death.
Whomever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. - Tao Te Ching
Hinduism and Buddhism are not the same, which is what I stated in my disagreement with your post. I didn't say that - The Buddha established this and as the founder broke away from the the traditions of Hinduism. That's all I said.
You're right - I do say Buddhism says this etc because I'm part of a Buddhist tradition. As such I don't presume to comment on what other religions are, only where they differ comparatively.
As for rejecting certain schools- I don't reject Zen - it's part of the Mahayana and I have attended teachings, but have previously - in an unrelated thread - pointed out that there are significant differences in mainstream Buddhism and Pure Land. There is nothing controversial in this - you just have to compare the teachings.
Your view that every religion is really one - theist and non-theist - is a concept which you are free to hold, but don't expect me to agree with you. An amalgamation of Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American spirituality etc does not appeal to me, whatever your spiritual experiences tell you.
Last edited by Paulclem; 09-03-2010 at 04:55 PM.
Good luck, Paul!
People are born soft and supple. Dead, they are stiff and hard.
Plants are born tender and pliant. Dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whomever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death.
Whomever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. - Tao Te Ching
Hinduism talk of Atman - a soul. Buddhism rejects this saying there is no eternally existing soul.
The concept of Emptines has been developed by Buddhist schools.
What is the same about that?
Hinduism has a divine basis in a creator God. Buddhism rejects the idea of a creator God - though it acknowledges that there are Gods subject to samsara - in favour of a beginingless past.
Same or different?
If you refer to your experince - then it really is meaningless to me. There are a mish-mash of reference points in other religions - and I'm not saying you didn't have your experience - but these are unhelpful. How can someone else follow or develop that path? You say - you've just got to realise - and statements like this. Open your mind et etc. How? It's not about just telling but following and realising through spiritual exercises.
Buddhism's path has been well charted with reference to The Buddha, realised teachers and a well known progression. The instructions are tried and tested.
Atman and Buddha-nature - as I said, there is one reality. They refer to the same thing. There is only one reality. It's qualitative nature is exactly as both religions describe it. Vedanta succinctly with SatChitAnanda - Being-Awareness-Bliss - and Buddhism with Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is universal nature. Another thing you reject out of hand, completely wrongly, is the idea of a source. You say it isn't part of Buddhism, and this is what I really take issue with. How can I explain to you you're wrong - you seem to be 100% rigid in what you believe. Buddhism speaks of a source in many places. In other conversations with you, you have not responded whenever I make a point or prove something you thought was wrong. You simply go on and I prove another thing and you ignore it - we talk at completely cross-purposes to each other. Even in this, just now, you have not replied to points I made about oneness in Zen. So what point is there for me to attempt to discuss with you? You do not discuss except in bad faith. So good luck, and goodbye.
People are born soft and supple. Dead, they are stiff and hard.
Plants are born tender and pliant. Dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whomever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death.
Whomever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. - Tao Te Ching
Buddha-nature or Buddha Principle (Buddha-dhātu), is taught, within Mahayana Buddhism, to be an intrinsic, immortal potency potential for reaching full and precious enlightenment that exists within the mind of every sentient being. Buddha-nature is not to be confused with the concept of Atman, or Self, but instead is viewed to be empty of defining characteristics (also see Sunyata and Nondualism).
From a 1 second search - Wikipedia.
Buddha-nature is universal nature.
No. Buddha nature is a potential in all beings to reach Enlightenment. You pronounce on Buddhism, but you really don't know that much about it, which is why I bother.
I bother because I am concerned that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't see why you should not be questioned and challenged when what you say is so far from the stated position in Buddhism. This is a discussion forum. It's clear that when I've done this in the past, it has rankled you, which is why you bring up issues from those past threads.
~
Since this discussion has turned into a "who rankles whom most" competition, this thread will now be closed.
~
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks